Outside of Dirk, the rest of their starting lineup averages 18.9 ppg, 16.7 ppg, 12.0 ppg, and 10.2 ppg for the season. That is in no way a garbage cast, and if so, the Celtics would be happy to trade you Wally S. for J Ho... and we'll even take Jason Terry off your hands, and you can have either Delonte, Rondo or Telfair... or all three if you want?

Garbage supporting cast...

see if he'll take ratliff, perkins, and doc for diop, dampier, and avery too.

how would you like a starting line up of jet, truth, d-ho, big al, and damp? think we could win the whole east with that?

When did anybody put Olajuwon over Jordan? The very minute that Hakeem finished dragging his team of spares to an NBA championship over the toughest possible road, do you think anybody was lining up to place him over MJ?

So, even for you, 'MVP' isn't the same thing as 'best player', is it?

Jordan played baseball in 1994. he only played a month of 1995. hakeem was the best player during those two year. not complicated.

If you don't have team success - as with Kobe - you may have stats and the marketing, you will not win it. When you have team success - as with Duncan - but you don't really have the stas or image any more, it's not enough.

So you need to do good in at least two of the above mentioned categories in order to be able to be in a position to win it, and team success wegihs in as much as the other two combined.

This year we have 3 players with the sufficient team success: Nash, Duncan and Dirk. Duncan has the team success, but not the image and the stats. Dirk has team success and stats, but his image is not his forte.Nash has all 3.

That's why I wouldn't be surprised if he won it again, albeit I'd give it to Dirk this year. Basically it's:

Most important player for a team: Nash
Player of the Year: Kobe
Most valuable player: Dirk

Dirk is the one who meets the criteria set for MVP best, so give him the award. We can argue whether the criteria set are good ones, but these given citeria is met best by Dirk this year, and it's actually pretty tough to argue.

Would you mind explaining how you came up with those percentages? If you ask me, it should be:

50% stats
45% team success
5% marketing and image

Plug those percentages into the grid, and there would be no contention over the MVP winners of the last two years.

On an aside: contrast all of the debate over the MVP award to the recent crowning of Barbosa for the 6th Man of the Year. There was no controversy; virtually everyone, whether you like the guy or his team -- or not, just simply gave him props because it was universally acknowledged that he deserved it. That's how the MVP should be.

If you don't have team success - as with Kobe - you may have stats and the marketing, you will not win it. When you have team success - as with Duncan - but you don't really have the stas or image any more, it's not enough.

So you need to do good in at least two of the above mentioned categories in order to be able to be in a position to win it, and team success wegihs in as much as the other two combined.

This year we have 3 players with the sufficient team success: Nash, Duncan and Dirk. Duncan has the team success, but not the image and the stats. Dirk has team success and stats, but his image is not his forte.Nash has all 3.

That's why I wouldn't be surprised if he won it again, albeit I'd give it to Dirk this year. Basically it's:

Most important player for a team: Nash
Player of the Year: Kobe
Most valuable player: Dirk

Dirk is the one who meets the criteria set for MVP best, so give him the award. We can argue whether the criteria set are good ones, but these given citeria is met best by Dirk this year, and it's actually pretty tough to argue.

No, Dirk is marketable. But this isn't true, because Tim Duncan has won in the past, twice actually. And there have been many players who aren't marketable, but the team succcess is beginning to become the biggest factor, which is wrong IMO.

It's my opinion that they are a lucky franchise to be coached by Avery Johnson. Many would agree, few would argue. Those who argue I put under the category clueless, dumbass, ignorant, etc.

Quote:

The mavs are the definition of a one-man-team.

You keep saying this. No TEAM that has won 65+ games can claim they were a one-man team. It just doesn't happen like that. Dirk can have nights of 20 points and 6 rebounds and the team still comes out with a victory. That's not one guy carrying a team.

Quote:

Dirk is the Peyton Manning of the NBA... the MVP with a garbage supporting cast. And because of that when Dirk looks bad becuase of his team he takes all the blame.

Now this, this is just laughable. Not ONLY are you clueless to basketball and everything to do with it, but you are clueless to the comparisons you make as well.

Let me tell you something... the Colts have a very well balanced team and if it wasn't for the team coming through Peyton would still be without that ring. Who protects Peyton? Who does Peyton throw the ball to? Who runs the ball so the passing game opens up? Who stops the other team from scoring?

No, Dirk is marketable. But this isn't true, because Tim Duncan has won in the past, twice actually. And there have been many players who aren't marketable, but the team succcess is beginning to become the biggest factor, which is wrong IMO.

Dirk is marketable, but Nash is more marketable. As for Duncan, he was a better AND more hyped up player back in the day when he won the award. You may remember the Bug Fundamental talk of 3-4 years ago. That name has all but disappeared since.

As for team success becoming the biggest factor being wrong I have to agree with you, but this is the way it goes anyway. Neither you or me have a say. It's the mentality society is leaning more and more towards. Winning is everything, if you don't win you are no good. I disagree with this assessment, but it exists. More and more so.

Was there ever a MVP-winning player with as many glaring weaknesses as Dirk Nowitzki?
Seriously, I'm a big Dirk fan, I'm from Germany and have actually met him before he came to the NBA.
In all-time standards, he is

- a bad defender
- a bad passer
- has no offensive game but shooting.

literally everything is able to do at a high level is shoot the basketball. Everything else is a direct result from that AND being tall and agile.

Nash is an equally bad defender, but he at least has a complete offensive game.

Duncan, KG, Kobe have NO weakness. They should be the ones in the running for MVP

When did anybody put Olajuwon over Jordan? The very minute that Hakeem finished dragging his team of spares to an NBA championship over the toughest possible road, do you think anybody was lining up to place him over MJ?

So, even for you, 'MVP' isn't the same thing as 'best player', is it?

yes while MJ was playing ****ing BASEBALL, he was the most valuable player in the NBA. got it. man I sure blew my argument didn't I? what a dumb little kid I am.

Quote:

youre full of ****. no offense but you have absolutely no clue what the hell you are talking about.

no offense my ass biitch. you're consistently dead wrong on fairly simple issues and have no credibility. I just outlined an inarguable proof that nobody has even put a dent in and you think you can just come in here like "you're full of ****"? I think logic dictates that it is the other way around. but I could be wrong. be my guest.

Quote:

I stopped reading right here. The fck do you mean they're SAVING it for later???????? You can fckin WATCH the game and see they're not the MVPs.

Was there ever a MVP-winning player with as many glaring weaknesses as Dirk Nowitzki?
Seriously, I'm a big Dirk fan, I'm from Germany and have actually met him before he came to the NBA.
In all-time standards, he is

- a bad defender
- a bad passer
- has no offensive game but shooting.

you can be an MVP and have weaknesses. it's not about that. it's about who has the strongest overall impact on the game. you can be as one dimensional as can be and have a strong impact (Ben Wallace) and you can have all the skills in the world and have no impact.

it's not that.

first of all your weaknesses are out of date. Dirk is far from a bad passer. he's on an all-time level off the dribble for his size. his defense isn't bad, it's just average. and to say he's got no offensive game other than shooting is incredibly dishonest, makes him seem like Memo Okur when his impact is much greater because of how and where he gets those shots off.

and even so. it's not about how complete your game is. it's about impact. it's about intangibles. it's about, compared to other players, how truly valuable you are overall. and Dirk just isn't there. his impact is comparable to a guard because he doesn't dominate the middle of the floor and has no defensive impact. he also has no leadership and few intangible qualities. that's why he's not the MVP.

top 5 player? fine. great player, absolutely. legitimate cornerstone to a championship team, I'll give him that too. but the most valuable player in basketball? absolutely not. ditto Nash. the fact that these guys are winning the MVP just further seals the deal on this award that has almost since its inception been completely devoid of substance.

and even so. it's not about how complete your game is. it's about impact. it's about intangibles. it's about, compared to other players, how truly valuable you are overall.

In an ideal world, like in your mind. But in reality... No. In reality it's about team wins, stats and image/marketing. I know it's flawed but that's the way it goes. Get over it.

Besides, Duncan doesn't really deserve it this year. You can easily chose LeBron over him in terms of making his team better. Nash, too. Kobe in winning more games single-handedly. Etc. Duncan is good, probably makes the top5 on anyone's list, but he is no MVP this season. Not by any standards but the ones you create. And I think you are creating these criteria to be able to come up with something original and stating something rarely discussed here.

Actually, I don't really believe you yourself think he should be the MVP. I bet you can make a better case for Shaq this season from the 'making the team better, having effect on the floor' standpoint.

no offense my ass biitch. you're consistently dead wrong on fairly simple issues and have no credibility. I just outlined an inarguable proof that nobody has even put a dent in and you think you can just come in here like "you're full of ****"? I think logic dictates that it is the other way around. but I could be wrong. be my guest.

then fine take it as an offense "biitch" you never made an argument you douche you just screamed for a little bit and through out alot of pomp and circumstance acting like your opinion is so much more valuable than anyone elses. dirk is inarguably a better offensive player than duncan. duncan is inarguably a better defensive player. i personally had duncan second but to act like its a landslide is a joke. they have equivalent talent around them, the mavs won alot more thus dirk is the mvp its fairly damn simple. he was more valuable this year. why is he more valuable? because hes VASTLY more effecient scoring the ball. he turns the ball over alot less and because unlike the "big fundamental" who cant do one of the most fundamental thing in basketball, he can make a damn ft.